Obama Terrorism Advisor’s Book Confuses and Distorts

By Raymond Ibrahim:

Reading CDR Youssef Aboul-Enein’s book, Militant Islamist IdeologyUnderstanding the Global Threat, published by the Naval Institute Press (2010), one can see why U.S. leadership is far from “understanding the global threat”; why the Obama administration is supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood; and why so many U.S. politicians rose up in condemnation when one obscure pastor threatened to burn a Koran.

book2According to the jacket cover, Aboul-Enein is “a top adviser at the Joint foIntelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism” and “has advised at the highest levels of the defense department and intelligence community.”

What advice does he give?

He holds that, whereas “militant Islamists” (e.g., al-Qaeda) are the enemy, “non-militant Islamists” (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood), are not: “It is the Militant Islamists who are our adversary. They represent an immediate threat to the national security of the United States. They must not be confused with Islamists.”

This theme, sometimes expressed in convoluted language—at one point we are urged to appreciate the “nuanced” differences “between Militant Islamists and between Militant Islamists and Islamists”—permeates the book.

Of course, what all Islamists want is a system inherently hostile to the West, culminating in a Sharia-enforcing Caliphate; the only difference is that the nonmilitant Islamists are prudent enough to understand that incremental infiltration and subtle subversion are more effective than outright violence. Simply put, both groups want the same thing, and differ only in methodology.

Whereas most of the book is meant to portray nonviolent Islamists in a nonthreatening light, sometimes Aboul-Enein contradicts himself, for instance by correctly observing that “the United States must be under no illusions that the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood includes limiting the rights of women” and other anti-Western aspects.

How to explain these discrepancies? Is the Brotherhood a problem for the U.S. or not?

The book’s foreword by Admiral James Stavridis clarifies by stating that the book is a “culmination of Commander Aboul-Enein’s essays, lectures, and myriad answers to questions.” In fact, Militant Islamist Ideology reads like a hodgepodge of ideas cobbled together, and the author’s contradictions are likely products of different approaches to different audiences over time.

His position on appeasing the Muslim world—a fixed feature of the current administration’s policies—is clear. Aboul-Enein recommends that, if ever an American soldier desecrates a Koran, U.S. leadership must relieve the soldier of duty, offer “unconditional apologies,” and emulate the words of Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Hammond: “I come before you [Muslims] seeking your forgiveness, in the most humble manner I look in your eyes today, and say please forgive me and my soldiers,” followed by abjectly kissing a new Koran and “ceremoniously” presenting it to Muslims.

Likewise, after rightfully admonishing readers not to rely on skewed or biased accounts of Islam, he presents Islamic apologist extraordinaire Karen Armstrong—whose whitewashed writings on Islam border on fiction—as the best source on the life of Muhammad.

Then there are Aboul-Enein’s flat out wrong assertions and distortions, examples of which this review closes with:

  • He asserts that “militant Islamists dismiss ijmaa [consensus] and qiyas [analogical reasoning].” In fact, none other than al-Qaeda constantly invokes ijmaa (for instance, the consensus that jihad becomes a personal duty when infidels invade the Islamic world) and justifies suicide attacks precisely through qiyas.
  • He insists that the Arabic word for “terrorist” is nowhere in the Koran—without bothering to point out that Koran 8:60 commands believers “to terrorize the enemy,” also known as non-Muslim “infidels.”
  • He writes, “when Muslims are a persecuted minority Jihad becomes a fard kifaya (an optional obligation), in which the imam authorizes annual expeditions into Dar el Harb (the Abode of War), lands considered not under Muslim dominance.” This is wrong on several levels: a fard kifaya is not an “optional obligation”—an oxymoron if ever there was one—but rather a “communal obligation”; moreover, he is describing Offensive Jihad, which is designed to subjugate non-Muslims and is obligatory to wage whenever Muslims are capable—not “when Muslims are a persecuted minority.”

Reshuffling the Deck in the Middle East

A man shuffling a deck of cardsCSP, By Kyle Shideler:

The New York Times wrote on Friday offering a brief glimpse at an underreported front in inter-Islam civil war currently spreading across the Middle East:

Yemen’s Shiite rebels on Friday overran an al-Qaida stronghold after days of battling the militants for the city in the country’s central heartland, a Yemeni official and a tribal leader said. The capture of the city of Radda, in the in the province of Bayda, came with the help of a Yemeni army commander, the two said. The Shiite rebels known as Houthis have been fighting both al-Qaida militants and Sunni tribes over the past few days. The rebels, who in September gained control of the capital, Sanaa, earlier this week overran a key Yemeni port city on the Red Sea.

The action, mirrored similar instances in the past when units in Yemen’s army suspected of links with former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, a Houthi ally, facilitated stunning rebel advances from their home base in northern Saada province. The army commander who helped the Houthis in Radda is said to be a loyalist of the ousted Saleh, who was deposed after the country’s 2011 uprising. Saleh and his party have joined ranks with the Houthis against a common enemy — the Islamist Islah party and its allied tribe of Al-Ahmar, traditional power brokers in Yemen.

Also Friday, fierce clashes erupted in Ibb province, nearly 200 kilometers (125 miles) south of Sanaa between the Houthis and tribesmen allied with the Islah party, leaving eight dead, according to other security officials in the province.

The Islah Party is Yemen’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s co-founder is Abdul_Majeed al-Zindani, who is a specially designated global terrorist, and an original spiritual mentor of Osama Bin Laden.

President Obama referred to Yemen and Somalia as models of success to be emulated in Syria. And while my CSP colleague Nik Hanlon handedly covered the problems with the Somalia comparison, Yemen is indeed an apt model for comparison, although not in the way meant by the President. In Yemen the struggle is between Shia militia fighters- backed by Iran and on behalf of a President who was ousted in Western -championed Arab Spring- are advancing against the joint forces of Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The same is true in Syria, where Muslim Brotherhood-linked fighters, such as the Islamic Front, fight side by side with Al Qaeda-linked Ahrar Al-Sham and AQ’s Syrian affiliate Jabhat al Nusra against Iranian IRGC and Shia Militias on behalf of Bashar Assad.

As in Yemen and Syria, so too in Libya, although instead of Iranian-linked Shia, the “counterrevolution” in Libya is led by a former general of Qaddafi’s, Khalifa Haftar, sponsored by Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Egypt in a fight against Al Qaeda’s affiliate Ansar al-Sharia-Libya, and the Muslim Brotherhood-backed militias. The same U.A.E air force that was trumpeted as a partner in the air strikes against ISIS,  conducted air strikes against the Libyan rebels with whom the U.S. had partnered against Qaddafi. But then, in this conflict ironies abound, as when Saudi Arabia bombs the “barbaric” ISIS in airstrikes launched in part following the beheading of Americans, while engaging in a rash of beheadings of their own.

Analysts who examine the current situation as a series of national struggles in separate countries have missed the boat entirely. Everywhere across the region, scores are being settled, and battle lines being drawn and redrawn. What is at stake is not just who will be the next leader of Syria, or Libya, or Yemen. It’s who will be represented as the leader(s) of Islam. Will they be Sunni or Shia? Does ISIS represent a Kharijite deviation as the Muslim Brotherhood accuses, or are the Ikhwan a Murji’ah deviation as ISIS concludes? Do they both represent a takfiri deviation, as the governments Saudi, Egypt and U.A.E and their state-sponsored clerics declare or are these same governments the apostate regimes that ISIS/AQ/MB claim them to be?

These are deeply profound doctrinal questions which are being hashed and rehashed in online screeds over the intricacies of Shariah law, but which will ultimately be settled with violence, just as they have been historically settled for hundreds of years.

For our purposes,  we should realize that the internecine conflict currently being waged does not mean that any of these forces are ultimately pro-Western or allies to be trusted. The same governments which are fighting ISIS paid for the mosques, staffed by Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated imams, at which the current group of ISIS fighters with Western passports were educated and indoctrinated. The Syrian rebels- including Muslim Brothers, that are fighting Assad and ISIS were also providing security for an Al Qaeda cell- The so-called Khorasan Group- whose purpose was a mass casualty attack on U.S. or allied soil. The Shia militias fighting ISIS on the outskirts of Baghdad were the ones using Iranian-manufactured Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs) to kill hundreds of Americans. The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leading the defense of Baghdad against ISIS also taught Al Qaeda how to use truck bombs to carry out the U.S. embassy attacks.

And on and on.

The reshuffling of the deck will continue in the Middle East for the time being, and it’s important to track the players, and understand their doctrinal differences and the basis for their conflict. But that is not the same as imagining that one of them represents a trump card for the West to play.

America’s “Most Influential Muslim” Endorses Sharia Law

Sheikh Hamza Yusuf

Sheikh Hamza Yusuf

By Ryan Mauro:

This year’s issue of The Muslim 500 names Sheikh Hamza Yusuf as the most influential Muslim-American. He is often portrayed as a moderate, but he recently endorsed Sharia governance and heads an Islamist college in California with extremist faculty.

Yusuf is ranked as the 35th most influential Muslim in the world by the publication. He is described as the “leading Islamic authority” in America. He is the current president and a senior faculty member of Zaytuna College in California.

He and 17 other Muslim-American leaders signed a lettercondemning the tactics of the Islamic State terrorist group and offering theological rebuttals. It is a letter that earned them tremendous positive publicity by news outlets that didn’t notice that the letter endorsed the resurrection of the Caliphate and Sharia governance, specifically its brutal hudud punishments.

Hudud punishments are fixed in the Qu’ran and Hadith and are unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law,” point 16 of the letter states.

It also used vague language that could justify other acts of terrorism, such as attacks by Hamas on Israel. The condemnation of the Islamic State’s targeting of American journalists contains an exception that approves of jihad against reporters they view as dishonest.

In a interview, Yusuf mourned “what happened in the 19th century with the abdication of Islamic Law and the usurpation of its place by Western legal systems.” He also accused the U.S. of trying to “unite the world” and criticized the “dominant world order, which is a capitalistic, Western world order.”

In 1996, he proudly displayed his anti-Americanism saying:

“[America] is a country that has little to be proud of in its past and less to be proud of in the present. I am a citizen of this country not by choice but by birth. I reside in this country not by choice but by conviction in attempting to spread the message of Islam in this country. I became Muslim in part because I did not believe the false gods of this society, whether we call them Jesus or democracy or the Bill of Rights.”

Read more at Clarion Project

Why Sam Harris Is Wrong about Islam

Real Time With Bill Maher

By Roger Kimball:

No doubt many of my readers know about the encounter about Islam [1] between Ben Affleck, the Hollywood actor, and Sam Harris, the “New Atheist” writer and neuroscientist, on Bill Maher’s show.

I do not know Ben Affleck’s work as an actor, so I don’t know whether he is commonly cast in comic roles. He was pretty funny, in a slightly deranged sort of way, on Bill Maher’s show, but perhaps that is his usual modus operandi.

I propose to leave the substance — if “substance” is the correct word — of Mr. Affleck’s effusions to one side.  His performance did make me wonder anew about the odd place of “celebrities” in our culture. Why, I have often wondered, does any thinking person care what Barbra Streisand (for example) has to say about . . . well, about anything not intimately concerned with pop singing? And yet clearly they do, since it’s a rare month that passes without the news that the chanteuse has weighed in [2] about some matter of political controversy. I’m not sure exactly which subjects I would be prepared to take Ben Affleck seriously on; Islam is certainly not one of them.

This is not, to say, however, that I am prepared to take Sam Harris seriously about Islam either.  As the Canadian and (more to the point) former Muslim writer Ali Sina points out in a brilliant article for the Jerusalem Post [3], the fact that Ben Affleck is wrong about Islam  ”does not mean Harris is right.” Indeed.

Harris is widely considered a critic of Islam.  In his debate with Ben Affleck, however, he simply recycled a well-meaning but pernicious myth about the followers of Muhammed. “Hundreds of millions of Muslims are nominal Muslims,” Harris cheerfully reported, where by “nominal” he meant that they “don’t take their faith seriously,” “don’t want to kill apostates,” and “are horrified by ISIS [Islamic State].”  These are the people, he concluded, “we need to defend,” to “prop them up and let them reform their faith.”

How often have you heard this? I hear it all the time, as often from conservatives as from liberals.  The trouble is, as Ali Sina points out, “reforming Islam the way he envisions it is an illusion.”

Why? Harris’s argument — you’ve heard it a hundred times — is basically this: Christianity was once intolerant. There were the Crusades, for instance, but think also of such episodes as the siege of Béziers, a Cathar stronghold, in the early 13th century. Here were Catholics besieging an heretical sect of their own people.  When asked by a soldier how they could distinguish the good guys from the bad, Arnaud Amaury, a Cistercian abbot who was helping to lead the fight, advised “Tuez-les tous! Dieu reconnaîtra les siens”: “Kill them all! God will know his own.”

But look at Christianity today. It’s all bake sales, bingo, and transgender-awareness retreats.  Maybe the same thing will happen to Islam.

Not likely, as Ali Sina points out. “Even though at one time the religion associated with Jesus had become violent and intolerant,” he notes, “there is nothing violent and intolerant in his teachings. The Crusades were the response of Christendom to jihad, and the Inquisition was the copycat of mihnah, a practice started by Caliph Ma’mun, which means ‘inquisition.’ They have no basis in the teaching of Christ.”

Read more at PJ Media

U.S. Humanitarian Aid Going to ISIS

1413813119830.cachedNot only are foodstuffs, medical supplies—even clinics—going to ISIS, the distribution networks are paying ISIS ‘taxes’ and putting ISIS people on their payrolls.

By Jamie Dettmer:

GAZIANTEP, Turkey—While U.S. warplanes strike at the militants of the so-called Islamic State in both Syria and Iraq, truckloads of U.S. and Western aid has been flowing into territory controlled by the jihadists, assisting them to build their terror-inspiring “caliphate.”

The aid—mainly food and medical equipment—is meant for Syrians displaced from their hometowns, and for hungry civilians. It is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, European donors, and the United Nations. Whether it continues is now the subject of anguished debate among officials in Washington and European. The fear is that stopping aid would hurt innocent civilians and would be used for propaganda purposes by the militants, who would likely blame the West for added hardship.

The Bible says if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him something to drink—doing so will “heap burning coals” of shame on his head. But there is no evidence that the militants of the Islamic State, widely known as ISIS or ISIL, feel any sense of disgrace or indignity (and certainly not gratitude) receiving charity from their foes.

Quite the reverse, the aid convoys have to pay off ISIS emirs (leaders) for the convoys to enter the eastern Syrian extremist strongholds of Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor, providing yet another income stream for ISIS militants, who are funding themselves from oil smuggling, extortion, and the sale of whatever they can loot, including rare antiquities from museums and archaeological sites.

“The convoys have to be approved by ISIS and you have to pay them: The bribes are disguised and itemized as transportation costs,” says an aid coordinator who spoke to The Daily Beast on the condition he not be identified in this article. The kickbacks are either paid by foreign or local nongovernmental organizations tasked with distributing the aid, or by the Turkish or Syrian transportation companies contracted to deliver it.

And there are fears the aid itself isn’t carefully monitored enough, with some sold off on the black market or used by ISIS to win hearts and minds by feeding its fighters and its subjects. At a minimum, the aid means ISIS doesn’t have to divert cash from its war budget to help feed the local population or the displaced persons, allowing it to focus its resources exclusively on fighters and war-making, say critics of the aid.

One of the striking differences between ISIS and terror groups of the past is its desire to portray the territory it has conquered as a well-organized andsmoothly functioning state. “The soldiers of Allah do not liberate a village, town, or city, only to abandon its residents and ignore their needs,” declares the latest issue of Dabiq, the group’s slick online magazine. Elsewhere in the publication are pictures of slaughtered Kurdish soldiers and a gruesome photograph of American journalist Steven Sotloff’s severed head resting on top of his body. But this article shows ISIS restoring electricity in Raqqah, running a home for the elderly, a cancer-treatment facility in Ninawa, and cleaning streets in other towns.

Last year, a polio outbreak in Deir ez-Zor raised concerns throughout the region about the spread of an epidemic. The World Health Organization worked with the Syrian government and with opposition groups to try to carry out an immunization campaign. This has continued. In response to a query by The Daily Beast, a WHO spokesperson said, “Our information indicates that vaccination campaigns have been successfully carried out by local health workers in IS-controlled territory.”

“I am alarmed that we are providing support for ISIS governance,” says Jonathan Schanzer, a Mideast expert with the Washington D.C.-based think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “By doing so we are indemnifying the militants by satisfying the core demands of local people, who could turn on ISIS if they got frustrated.”

Read more at Daily Beast

Also see:

THE UNITED WEST: FBI WARNING: CAIR Organized by HAMAS

 

Published on Oct 19, 2014 by theunitedwest

In 2008 the Federal Bureau of Investigation warned America that the self-proclaimed “Muslim civil-rights” group, CAIR, was really part of the Palestinian terrorist organization the HAMAS.

In fact, as we have proven, CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations actually functions as the “Special Operations Division” (SOD) of the political department of the HAMAS. Part of the CAIR “SOD” functions is to attack with media propaganda any person or organization who analyzes or criticizes CAIR.

For several years now, CAIR has been able to maintain their non-terrorist Islamic “hue,” that is, until they have become a subject of our ground-breaking series, “Enemies of the State.” Stay tuned to this unique series as we send our research investigators deeply into the federal files on CAIR and present factual conclusions that will disrupt, disable and destroy the operations of CAIR/HAMAS USA.

In Reversal, Turkey to Open Passage to Kobani for Kurdish Fighters

Turkish Kurds watch airstrikes Saturday on the Syrian town of Kobani from neighboring Suruc, Turkey, near the Syrian border. KAI PFAFFENBACH/REUTERS

Turkish Kurds watch airstrikes Saturday on the Syrian town of Kobani from neighboring Suruc, Turkey, near the Syrian border. KAI PFAFFENBACH/REUTERS

By JOE PARKINSON in Istanbul, SAM DAGHER in Dohuk, Iraq and RORY JONES in Beirut:

Turkey said Monday it would allow Iraqi Kurdish fighters to cross its territory to reinforce the embattled Syrian city of Kobani, reversing its long-standing opposition to such aid hours after U.S. airdrops of weapons and ammunition to the city’s Syrian Kurdish defenders.

Speaking in a news conference in the Turkish capital Ankara, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu didn’t offer details how Turkish authorities would enable the transfer Kurdish Peshmerga fighters across Turkey or whether Syrian Kurdish authorities would accept additional forces.

“We are aiding the transfer of Peshmerga forces to Kobani for support. Consultations on this matter are ongoing,” Mr. Cavusoglu said.

The announcement that Iraqi Kurdish fighters would be allowed by Ankara to transit through Turkish territory to Syria followed by hours the start of U.S. airdrops of weapons and supplies to Kobani’s defenders, despite public opposition from Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Mr. Erdogan said Saturday he wouldn’t allow U.S. arms transfers to Kurdish fighters through Turkey and equated the Syrian Kurdish fighters with Islamic State.

Turkey’s government is wary of the Syrian Kurdish militia, which is loyal to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which Ankara has fought in a low-intensity war for three decades.

In a telephone conversation Saturday, President Barack Obamainformed Mr. Erdogan about the airdrops to Kobani, which demonstrated that Turkish objections wouldn’t stop Washington providing weapons to the Syrian Kurds and protecting the credibility of campaign it is leading against Islamic State.

Three U.S. C-130 cargo planes dropped 27 bundles of weapons, ammunition and medical supplies in the northwest of the city, U.S. officials said.

The aid traveled first to Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government, which controls the Peshmerga force and is headed by Massoud Barzani, Kurdish leaders said. From there, it was transported to Kobani.

Leaders of the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party, or PYD, the Syrian Kurdish political group whose fighters are leading the battle against Islamic State in Kobani, praised the U.S. move.

“This is a turning point that will set the foundation for better ties in the future,” Aldar Khalil, senior leader in the Social Democratic Movement, an umbrella group for Syrian Kurdish parties that includes the PYD and is tied to the PKK.

“This is a huge deal,” Mr. Khalil said.

There were no signs early Monday that the fresh aid had affected fighting between Kurdish and Islamic State forces, Ferhad Shami, a freelance Kurdish journalist accompanying a Kurdish militia unit inside Kobani, said by telephone.

The militant group was using more sophisticated weaponry, such as tanks, field artillery and Humvees, than the Syrian Kurdish forces, Mr. Shami said.

Read more at WSJ

Also see:

 

Former Iraqi MP Ayad Jamal Al-Din: A Civil State Is the Only Solution to Combat ISIS

 

Published on Oct 20, 2014 by MEMRITVVideos

In a recent TV interview, former Iraqi MP Ayad Jamal Al-Din called for the establishment of a civil state in Iraq based on man-made law and equality, rather than on Islamic jurisprudence, as the only way to combat ISIS. He further said that there were thousands of mosques in the U.S. and worldwide that incited and prepared people to join ISIS. “Islam has been politicized and is used as a sword,” he said in the Al-Iraqiya TV interview, which aired on October 17.

Qatar Awareness Campaign – Letter to ExxonMobil #StopQatarNow

qatar_awareness_campaign_logoRex W. Tillerson
ExxonMobil
Corporate Headquarters
5959 Las Colinas Boulevard
Irving, Texas 75039-2298

Dear Mr. Tillerson:

This letter is being sent to you on behalf of the Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition.  The purpose is to inform you and the public of the activities of Qatar.  Of all the American companies currently involved with Qatar, none is more responsible for Qatar’s economic success than ExxonMobil.  Indeed, Qatar has the world’s highest per capita GDP, at $102,100 (2013).

The United States has two massive military bases in Qatar: Al Udeid, the home of CENTCOM for the region, and As Sayliyah, the largest pre-positioning base outside the continental United States.  One primary reason that these bases exist in Qatar is because they are subsidized (or, as the Washington Post put it, owned) by the Qatari government.  These Qatar-owned bases are what protect Qatar from their neighbors, many whom have been thrown into Qatari-induced chaos following the Muslim Brotherhood’s Arab Spring.

In addition to these bases, the Muslim Brotherhood broadcaster, Al Jazeera, has huge annual budget, partially subsidized by the Qatari state – $650 million in 2010!

Where has Qatar gained the wealth required to develop modern military bases and a worldwide multimedia network with an oversized budget?  More than 50% of Qatar’s GDP comes from natural gas and oil extraction.  Proven reserves of the North Field are estimated at 900 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.  In order to exploit this resource, the technology and capital equipment poor Qataris needed a partner in a multinational energy company.  Hence, ExxonMobil’s presence in Qatar since the early 1990s.

It is only natural for a small, energy rich nation to partner with a foreign extraction company, who can offer capital and development.  And this is what Qatar has done with ExxonMobil, to the point where the country and company are intertwined to an astounding degree:

  • ExxonMobil is involved with no less than nine joint ventures with Qatar, with ownership varying between 10%-45%.
  • As of 2010, there were 550 ExxonMobil employees based out of Qatar, assisting local Qatari companies with whom they are partnered.
  • In May 2013, it was reported by Bloomberg that ExxonMobil announced that they would be partnering with Qatar Petroleum International to build a $10 billion natural gas export terminal in Texas.
  • ExxonMobil sponsored the Qatar ExxonMobil Open 2014, an annual tennis tournament held in Doha.  This marked the 20th straight year that ExxonMobil had sponsored the tournament, to which the company name has been appended.
  • ExxonMobil is a corporate sponsor of WISE, the global Qatari education initiative, which is active throughout public schools in the United States.

Additionally, Qatar it is involved in Taliban narcotics trafficking through a relationship with the Pakistani National Logistics Cell, and profits from operating a virtual slave state.  A recent press report explained how a Qatari citizen was the moneyman for an Al Qaeda group in Syria.  His alias?  Umar al-Qatari.

The QAC Coalition and petitioners ask that you consider the attached sourced report on Qatar’s activities.  The links cited are vetted and credible sources.  We hope you take the time to verify the truth of the statements for yourself.

After doing so, the Coalition of the Qatar Awareness Campaign calls on you to exert due influence on the Qatari government to cease any type of involvement in all forms of Islamic terrorism, slavery, and drug trafficking!

Sincerely,

Lt. Col. Allen B. West (US Army, Ret) – AllenBWest.com

Charles Ortel – Washington Times

Frank Gaffney, Jr. – Center for Security Policy

Pamela Geller –  Atlas Shrugs

Paul E Vallely, US Army (Ret) – Chairman, Stand Up America

Robert Spencer – Jihad Watch

Walid Shoebat – Shoebat.com

& the entire Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition.

Qatar Research Report: http://www.stopqatarnow.com/p/research-report.html
Sign the Petition! Visit www.stopqatarnow.com
Facebook: Stop Qatar Now
Twitter: @stopqatarnow

Select signatures as of 9/27.  The Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition is comprised of more than 25 journalists, national security experts, publishers, and independent researchers. To view all Coalition participants, please visit the Campaign’s website.

CC: Corporate Media, ExxonMobil.

Truth Revolt: FEAR OF EBOLA

Published on Oct 17, 2014 by TruthRevoltOriginals

A deadly epidemic is on the loose in America. It’s not an Ebola epidemic. It’s an epidemic of fear. In this must-see FIREWALL, Bill Whittle tells us not only that we should be optimistic, but WHY we should be optimistic, as well as what was done right, what was done wrong, and what needs to be done in the future.

Transcript

Hi everybody. I’m Bill Whittle and this is the Firewall.

There’s an epidemic breaking out in America – a deadly and destructive epidemic that can do catastrophic damage to our country and its people. It’s not an Ebola epidemic. It’s an epidemic of fear. It’s an epidemic of fear caused not only by the presence of a terrible disease, but by the sense that no one is in charge, no one is taking decisive action, and that the people charged with defending us against this kind of threat were asleep at the wheel and continue to flounder, lie to us, and cover their mistakes. When you get right down to it, this fear epidemic is caused by the belief that in this battle with Ebola, it’s the virus that has the initiative.

And it doesn’t have to be this way. All the American people need is a little honesty, and a little leadership, and if the Federal government cannot be counted on to tell you the politically incorrect truth, then that job falls to the states, or to the people themselves.

So let me try to tell you what there is to fear, why there is cause for optimism, and what actions need to be taken.

EVD, the Ebola Virus Disease, is a pretty simple, single strand of RNA that produces hemmoragic fever — in its later stages it destroys the walls of blood vessels and causes a host of horrific symptoms. The critical number — in terms of our ability to contain an outbreak — is the Basic Reproduction Number, R sub zero, usually spoken as “R Naught.” R naught is an estimate of how many people an infected person will pass the disease on to.

If R naught is less than one, the disease dies out over time. If greater than one, it will grow, and the bigger the number, the faster it will grow.

The deadly 1918 outbreak of influenza, spread easily by airborne droplets from sneezing, had an R naught of 2-3: every infected person infected two to three more. Measles, which is completely airborne, is extremely infections with an R naught of 12-18.

Ebola, in its present form, has an R naught of only 1-2. That number is very low, because Ebola is not transmitted either through the air or even through droplets, like measles or the flu. To contract Ebola, you need to be in direct physical contact, with a visibly symptomatic carrier, and even then the virus cannot pass through healthy skin but has to enter through the mouth, eyes, cuts, etc.

But that’s still a positive number, if a low one, and that means the disease spreads. But the one thing that we need to keep in mind is that the existing reproductive rate of 1-2 for Ebola is artificially much, much higher than it would be here in America, because it is derived from conditions in Central and now West Africa, where sanitary conditions are appalling and effective isolation virtually impossible. Ebola’s relatively low infection index is as high as it is almost exclusively because of burial customs in African culture, where tradition dictates that relatives wash the blood off the infected bodies by hand – blood that in the case of Ebola is extremely contagious, and there are not a lot a lot of rubber gloves or surgical masts in West Africa.

And there’s another factor: Ebola is not just spread by contact. It is also spread by fear. And in Africa that fear also drives these numbers much higher than they would normally be.

On September 18th, 2014 at least eight government health workers and journalists were found hacked to death in a latrine in Guinea, murdered in cold blood by villagers who thought they were in fact spreading the disease intentionally. There are reports of relatives breaking into hospitals in West Africa, assaulting the medical staff and removing, by force, extremely infectious individuals while shouting “There is no Ebola!” Riots broke out in the Guinean city of Neh-zeh Reh-KOH-ree, when health workers spraying disinfectant were thought to be spreading the disease. When a population attacks health workers, doctors and hospitals, instead of heeding them — well that R naught of 1-2 reflects all of that. We will not see that here.

Now despite these positive factors, this outbreak is in fact a very serious condition. Ebola, unlike most viruses, which can survive outside of a living body for only a few seconds or at most a few minutes, appears to be able to remain viable four up to three or fours days. So it’s a very persistent agent; hence the biohazard suits you so often see. And, of course, once contracted the disease is extremely lethal: fatality rates as high as 90% untreated and at least 50% under good conditions. So this is, in fact, a very serious problem but not an unmanageable one — especially if you live in the West. I suspect more people are going to die before we get this contained. But I do not see it breaking out into our population the way it has in Africa.

Now of course, that’s assuming we have a competent government. However: Federal authorities didn’t seem to give a second thought when large numbers of illegal aliens carrying various serious infections were simply tightly packed together and then distributed across the country. And, as usual, we seem to be critically short on test kits and anti-viral medications — especially vaccines. Why? We have known about this deadly disease since 1976. We have 11 carrier strike groups, fully armed and staffed, fully trained, with most of them operational at all times in order to defend the American people. Why are we so perpetually unprepared in the face of this serious and well-known threat? Is it because the present administration is so commited to the idea of open borders?

We’re also told that shutting off air travel to West Africa will hamper medical access and health care workers. Really? Really? You’re telling me that we can’t shut off civilian air traffic to these highly contagious areas without being smart enough to get medical personnel in and out of there, on military transports, with personnel who are presumably trained in chemical, biological and nuclear contamination protocols?

Some shameless Democrats are blaming budget cuts for this outbreak, but when the President spends $500 million of your tax dollars on Solyndra to make solar cells and then immediately goes bankrupt, taking that money with it; or when Obamacare is spending two thousand six hundred billion dollars in ten years, and they still can’t be prepared, then maybe the answer isn’t more money for the government. Maybe the answer is a government that gets its priorities straight when it comes to defending the American people.

And where’s the President on all this? Why does a private citizen have to stand here and make the case when this is in fact precisely the reason we have a chief executive in the first place?

Maybe he’s out fundraising. Maybe he’s playing golf. Maybe he just doesn’t care. But, as usual,  he sure as hell is not out in front of this issue – this one above all others — telling us why all we really have to fear is fear itself.

Also see:

Islamic Burial Rituals Blamed For Spread Of Ebola

Dead-girlInvestors Business Daily, By Paul Sperry: (h/t BNI)

Islam isn’t just at the heart of the terror threat posed by the Islamic State. The religion is also contributing to the other major crisis plaguing the globe: the spread of Ebola.

Washington and its media stenographers won’t tell you this, lest they look intolerant, but Islamic burial rituals are a key reason why health officials can’t contain the spread of the deadly disease in West Africa.

Many of the victims of Ebola in the three hot-spot nations there — Sierra Leone and Guinea, as well as neighboring Liberia — are Muslim. Roughly 73% of Sierra Leone’s and about 85% of Guinea’s people are Muslim. Islam, moreover, is practiced by more than 13% of Liberians.

When Muslims die, family members don’t turn to a funeral home or crematorium to take care of the body. In Islam, death is handled much differently.

Relatives personally wash the corpses of loved ones from head to toe. Often, several family members participate in this posthumous bathing ritual, known as Ghusl.

Before scrubbing the skin with soap and water, family members press down on the abdomen to excrete fluids still in the body. A mixture of camphor and water is used for a final washing. Then, family members dry off the body and shroud it in white linens.

Again, washing the bodies of the dead in this way is considered a collective duty for Muslims, especially in Muslim nations. Failure to do so is believed to leave the deceased “impure” and jeopardizes the faithful’s ascension into Paradise (unless he died in jihad; then no Ghusl is required).

Before the body is buried, Muslims attending the funeral typically pass a common bowl for use in ablution or washing of the face, feet and hands, compounding the risk of infection.

Though these customs are prescribed by Shariah law, they’re extremely dangerous and should be suspended. Mosque leaders must step in to educate village Muslims about the dangers of interacting with corpses.

Ebola victims can be more contagious dead than alive. Their bodies are covered in rashes, blood and other fluids containing the virus.

“Funerals and washing dead bodies in West African countries have led, to a great extent, to spread the disease,” a World Health Organization spokeswoman recently warned.

WHO has issued an advisory to Red Cross and other relief workers in African Muslim nations to “be aware of the family’s cultural practices and religious beliefs. Help the family understand why some practices cannot be done because they place the family or others at risk for exposure.”

Video: Timothy R. Furnish joins MidPoint to discuss why ISIS beheads its victims

Published on Oct 16, 2014 by NewsmaxTV

Visit Dr. Furnish’s website, http://mahdiwatch.org/

Also see:

IS THE ISLAMIC STATE ISLAMIC?

iraq-al-qaeda-convoy-APBreitbart:

Robert Reilly, former director of the Voice of America, has written a seminal article on the religiously-motivated threat America currently faces. The original was published on Tuesday by the Liberty Fund and is reposted with permission.

Nothing could be more curious to Muslims than Western non-Muslims telling them what their religion is about.

Would not Christians find it odd to hear from Muslims what the true meaning of their religion is? Nevertheless, after almost every terrorist act against a Westerner, particularly the more gruesome ones like beheadings, Western heads of state reflexively react with protestations that such acts are absolutely un-Islamic, despite the explicit claims of their perpetrators that they are done precisely as religious acts, as they exultantly declare, “Allahu Akbar.”

For example, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron, noted Muslim scholars both, were the first to assure us that the Islamic State or ISIS, after it had decapitated an American and a British citizen, has nothing to do with Islam. (Of course, we can trace the genealogy of this thinking at least back to former President George W. Bush who said, after 9/11, “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. . . Islam is peace.) Their subalterns also chimed in. Secretary of State John Kerry announced that Islam is a “peaceful religion based on the dignity of all human beings.” He denounced the Islamic State as “this enemy of Islam.” U.K. Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond asserted that the Islamic State “goes against the most basic beliefs of Islam.”

Clerics were not far behind. The Archbishop of Brisbane, Australia, Mark Coleridge said, “It has nothing to do with real Islam.” At a September press conference, retired Cardinal Theodore McCarrick claimed that “Catholic social teaching is based on the dignity of the human person . . . [and] as you study the holy Koran, as you study Islam, basically, this is what Muhammad the prophet, peace be upon him, has been teaching.” Therefore, these killings were not canonically correct. So they must not be due to Islam, but to a lack of opportunity—something we can fix.

This sort of exculpation happens so frequently that I can only understand it as a kind of preemptive Stockholm Syndrome. Because we don’t want to face the consequences if such acts are Islamic, we will simply insist that they are not: they can’t be because we find that unacceptable. The preemptive Stockholm Syndrome not only provides huge psychological relief to us, but it also lets Islam off the hook.

Why don’t we wait to hear from Muslims on this? Wouldn’t they be in a better position to say? In Jordan, politician Muhammad Bayoudh Al-Tamimi, a Palestinian, adamantly defended ISIS during a television appearance posted online in late August. Islamic State ideology “stems from the Quran and the Sunna,” he said, according to the translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). “The Quran and the Sunna constitute their ideology, doctrine, and conduct. . . . There is no such thing as ‘ISIS ideology’—it’s Islam.”

That of course supports the position of ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, who has declared himself caliph and claims descent from Mohammed. Unlike Obama and Cameron, he has a PhD in Islamic studies. As any good caliph would, he has commanded the allegiance of all Muslims in order that they might reclaim their “dignity, might, rights and leadership,” and announced that ISIS would march on Rome. If he is a real caliph, there is nothing particularly unorthodox about this, and it would resonate with a desire in the hearts of many Muslims.

“We look forward to the coming, as soon as possible, of the caliphate,” said Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most popular preacher and scholar in the Sunni Muslim world. However, he cautioned, the “declaration issued by the Islamic State is void under sharia and has dangerous consequences for the Sunnis in Iraq and for the revolt in Syria,” adding that the title of caliph can “only be given by the entire Muslim nation,” not by a single group.

So the problem is not with the idea of the caliphate, but with this particular pretender to the title. However, as the long history of Islam has shown, power is self-legitimating in the Muslim world. Power comes from Allah; otherwise, how could one have it? Therefore, further success in battle and more oaths of allegiance from other Muslim groups may vindicate Al-Baghdadi’s claim. That is why Muslim rulers, particularly in the Middle East, are particularly anxious that he be defeated. Otherwise, their goose is cooked.

This is essentially a Muslim quarrel. In fact, the Muslim opponents of ISIS refer to its members as Kharijites, referring to a 7thcentury intramural conflict over the caliphate that was likewise settled with a great deal of blood.

However, we in the West are unlikely to hear of the struggle in these terms. More likely, we are assuaged by statements like that made in August by former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who said: “There is no place for violence in Islam. Islam is a religion of peace and some people have wrongly interpreted the religion.” No doubt, and there have been many such protestations from Muslim leaders and religious figures.

But how is peace defined in Islam? The key is to understand the Islamic jurisprudential context in which these things are said. I have no doubt of the sincerity of most Muslim leaders in saying the things they do, but we in the West are largely unaware of what they mean by what they say. This is due to our ignorance of Islam.

Read more at Breitbart

Robert Reilly is the Senior Fellow for Strategic Communication at the American Foreign Policy Council. He is the author of The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis (ISI Books, 2010) and The Prospects and Perils of Catholic-Muslim Dialogue (Isaac Publishing, 2013) .

New Benghazi Indictment Still Doesn’t Mention Al-Qaeda

20140916__benghazi_caskets_murdered_lby ANDREW C. MCCARTHY:

On September 10, 2012, al-Qaeda’s emir, Ayman al-Zawahiri, issued a lengthy statement to his fellow jihadists in Libya. He called on them to avenge the American military’s killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi, the highest ranking al-Qaeda operative in that country. His “blood is calling, urging and inciting you to fight and kill the Crusaders,” Zawahiri cried.

The diatribe was no surprise, the following day being the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 atrocities committed against the United States by the terror network with which we were – and are – still at war. Plus, jihadists in Benghazi, the terror network’s hub in eastern Libya, had repeatedly attacked American and other Western targets during the preceding five months.

The following night, September 11, 2012, jihadists from al-Qaeda’s main Libyan franchise, Ansar al-Sharia, laid siege to a U.S. State Department mission in Benghazi, the very target jihadists had detonated an IED against only three months earlier, on June 6. They torched the facility, murdered the American ambassador to Libya, killed three additional American officials, and wounded several others in an attack that lasted several hours – a terrorist attack by our wartime enemies during which President Obama and the U.S. armed forces took no meaningful action to respond or rescue our personnel.

Now, do you suppose what happened before the Benghazi massacre – the continuing war with al-Qaeda, the serial jihadist attacks, the call by the terror network’s leader right before the 9/11 anniversary to avenge a “martyr” by striking against the United States – just might shed some light on the terrorist attack involving al-Qaeda’s Libyan franchise against the State Department compound that night?

If you do, you clearly do not work for the Obama administration and its brazenly politicized Justice Department.

For them, as a superseding indictment filed on Monday reaffirms, “al-Qaeda” is a term not to be uttered – except at fundraisers, and only for the purpose of absurdly claiming victory over the terrorist group. And Benghazi is just a spontaneous protest that, somehow, came to involve terrorists – impossible to have foreseen and over in the blink of an eye, before any commander-in-chief could have done much about it.

Yes, Attorney General Eric Holder’s minions have finally filed their long-awaited superseding indictment against Ahmed Abu Khatallah, a ringleader in the Benghazi attack. It is a gussied up replay of the original indictment returned last summer, the one that was roundly mocked by critics, not least by your humble correspondent. That indictment was more a political than a legal document, hewing to the administration’s fictional account of Benghazi as a sudden uprising, not a coordinated attack within the framework of an ongoing terrorist conspiracy.

The Justice Department hopes you’ll miss the chicanery this time because, ostensibly, they’ve beefed up the charges. Instead of the original indictment’s bare-bones brevity – it was just two pages long (actually, just 15 lines) and alleged just one count against the single defendant – the superseding indictment comes in at about 21 pages and now levels 18 charges against Khatallah. But the additional heft merely comes from a mining of new statutory offenses out of the same version of events. The story has not changed.

That is, the new indictment does not allege an al-Qaeda terrorist conspiracy against the United States. It instead posits a scheme lasting just one day – indeed, perhaps just a few hours – in which Khatallah is accused of agreeing to lend material support, namely, himself, to unidentified terrorists who spontaneously attacked the State Department compound without much planning or warning. It is indictment as agitprop: a charging instrument designed to sit comfortably with the Obama administration’s political claims.

The superseding indictment makes no mention of al-Qaeda, much less of Zawahiri’s baying for American blood. After all, the president had said some three-dozen times during the 2012 campaign that he had already defeated al-Qaeda. In fact, Obama had the temerity to repeat that risible claim at his Vegas fundraiser the day after the massacre (“A day after 9/11, we are reminded that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead”).

Read more: Family Security Matters

New Revelation: ISIS Leader Originally from Muslim Brotherhood

371210_Al-Baghdadiby Raymond Ibrahim:

In a new video interview, Shiekh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the most respected clerics in the Muslim community and spiritual father of the Muslim Brotherhood, confirmed that the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was once a member of the Brotherhood.

But he was always “inclined to be a leader,” so after he was released from prison (for his Brotherhood activities), he joined with the Islamic State, eventually rising to be its “caliph.”

According to Egyptian Minister of Religious Endowments (Awqaf), Dr. Muhammad Mukhtar Gom‘a, “Qaradawi’s confession confirms that the Brotherhood is the spiritual father to every extremist group.”

Qaradawi’s confession, of course, is not meant to cast aspersions on the Brotherhood.  Rather, it seems that he was trying to revive the narrative that imprisoning and suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood—most recently in Egypt’s last revolution—only leads to greater “extremism.”